Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/238,473

SCARF AND FACE COVER

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Aug 26, 2023
Examiner
HADEN, SALLY CLINE
Art Unit
3732
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
248 granted / 773 resolved
-37.9% vs TC avg
Strong +42% interview lift
Without
With
+41.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
840
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.4%
+0.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 773 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendment, filed 21 August 2025, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Status of Claims Amended 1-8 Pending 1-8 Presented for Examination 1-8 Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 21 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Drawing Objections, Specification Objections, Claim Objections, 112(b) Rejections Overcome by amendment and withdrawn. 103 Rejections Applicant’s arguments are drawn to newly added subject matter and are addressed in the rejections below. Drawings The drawings were received on 21 August 2025. These drawings are acceptable to enter but raise new objections. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 102, 106, 202, 206, 306, 402, and 406. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “fusible nonwoven interfacing of lamb's wool” (claims 1 and 5) and “fleece” (claims 3 and 7). Examiner believes “lamb’s wool” and “fleece” are Applicant’s attempt to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection by claiming generic THERMOLAM. However, THERMOLAM is a product of PELLON, and on PELLON’s website, Examiner has identified three different types of THERMOLAM including two that are “fusible” (https://www.pellonprojects.com/?s=thermolam&submit=). Neither of the two fusible THERMOLAM products are made of lamb’s wool, so “fusible nonwoven interfacing of lamb's wool” does not appear to be referring to THERMOLAM. Therefore, “nonwoven interfacing of lamb’s wool in claims 1 and 5 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Furthermore, present para. 0009 discloses the scarf made from fleece and para. 0011 discloses THERMOLAM in a middle section of the scarf, but the disclosure does not support fleece in the middle section of the scarf. Therefore, “fleece” in claims 3 and 7 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Claim Objections Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “and not disturb make or restrict a user's head movement” appears to be missing a word and/ or punctuation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new matter is “fusible nonwoven interfacing of lamb's wool” (claims 1 and 5) and “fleece” (claims 3 and 7). Examiner believes “lamb’s wool” and “fleece” are Applicant’s attempt to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection by claiming generic THERMOLAM. However, THERMOLAM is a product of PELLON, and on PELLON’s website, Examiner has identified three different types of THERMOLAM including two that are “fusible” (https://www.pellonprojects.com/?s=thermolam&submit=). Neither of the two fusible THERMOLAM products are made of lamb’s wool, so “fusible nonwoven interfacing of lamb's wool” does not appear to be referring to THERMOLAM. Therefore, “nonwoven interfacing of lamb’s wool in claims 1 and 5 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Furthermore, present para. 0009 discloses the scarf made from fleece and para. 0011 discloses THERMOLAM in a middle section of the scarf, but the disclosure does not support fleece in the middle section of the scarf. Therefore, “fleece” in claims 3 and 7 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehmeyer (US 4532410 A) in view of Pattern Review (https://sewing.patternreview.com/SewingDiscussions/topic/25749). As to claims 1 and 5, Wehmeyer discloses a scarf and face cover (“neck scarf,” abstract, the neck scarf includes bib 26, capable of covering the face), comprising cloth (cloth and fabric are synonymous and col 4 line 25-30 discloses, “The scarf blank may be constructed of any fabric suitable for making a scarf to be worn around the neck of a wearer, such as woven synthetics, silk or woolens.”) and fusible interfacing (iron-on interfacing 36). Wehmeyer does not disclose the fusible interfacing is nonwoven interfacing of lamb's wool. Pattern Review teaches providing a lamb’s wool interlining in a winter coat (10/16/02 at 4:27 PM ET: “I’ve been reading up on both Thinsulate and lambswool, and I think I’d prefer to interline with lambswool (given that Thinsulate cannot be ironed or dry-cleaned, and I’d like to have those options available, although more and more I’m moving away from dry cleaning). I found lambswool at www.greenberg-hammer.com; if my local shops don’t have any, I’ll order it from there.”). Interfacing and interlining are both methods of lining a single pattern piece, where interfacing is fused to the pattern piece and interlining is sewn to the pattern piece. An interlining of lamb’s wool would be fusible/ capable of being fused if provided with heat activated adhesive as other fusible interfacings are. Therefore, it is known to provide lamb’s wool to line or interface a garment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wehmeyer’s fusible interfacing as nonwoven lamb’s wool, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wehmeyer’s fusible interfacing as nonwoven lamb’s wool the for the purpose of providing a garment that can be ironed or dry-cleaned (Pattern Review 10/16/07 4:27 PM ET). As to claims 4 and 8, Wehmeyer as modified discloses herein the scarf and face cover is designed in such a manner to remain in an upright position and not disturb make or restrict a user's head movement (capable of remaining upright and not disturbing or restricting). Claim(s) 2-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wehmeyer (US 4532410 A) in view of Pattern Review (https://sewing.patternreview.com/SewingDiscussions/topic/25749) as applied to claim 1 or 5 above, and further in view of Visco et al. (US 20060137072 A1). As to claims 2 and 6, Wehmeyer as modified does not disclose the cloth further comprises fleece. Visco teaches a similar scarf (10) including fleece (para. 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide fleece, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide fleece, for the purpose of insulation. As to claims 3 and 7, Wehmeyer as modified does not disclose fleece is in a middle section of the scarf to provide rigidity and hold the scarf in an upright position. Visco teaches a similar scarf (10) including fleece (para. 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wehmeyer’s middle section with fleece, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Wehmeyer’s middle section with fleece, for the purpose of insulation. The fleece would obvious provide at least some degree of rigidity and hold the scarf in a position at least some degree of upright. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Ostrup can be reached at 571-272-5559. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. SALLY HADEN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3732 /SALLY HADEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 26, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
May 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 21, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12543802
INFANT SWADDLING GARMENT ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12478121
Surgical Gown
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Patent 12471648
Patient gown
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 18, 2025
Patent 12419362
LIGHT BIB BODY AND BIB
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 23, 2025
Patent 12414596
HOOD STRUCTURE FOR A GARMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 16, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+41.5%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 773 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month